The Adam Driver Debate

This idea is so massive brained that I hope it comes across in the way I wanted to.

The origin of this idea was the humorous observation that when you ask a woman to explain why the find Adam Driver attractive, they give you some absurdly theoretical explanation that somehow ignores that straight-out fact that he is unattractive-- in fact, they often admit the fact! Men, on the other hand, are scientific and analytical creatures-- no theory needed. Are the boobs big? Is the face symmetrical? Numbers go up? Then good.

This comparison was the initial joke, which then reminded me of Chomsky (I'm a big fan, personally.) Particularly his utter dismissal of continental philosophy, with Zizek in particular, as essentially just substanceless posturing. I was initially going to end the comic by just having the male character quote chomsky, but then I thought fuck it, make the entire crux of the comic revolve around the similarities between these argumentative styles re:Driver (and attraction in men and women at large) and the differences between continental and analytic philosophy, focusing only Zizek and Chomsky in particular, since they both have fun speaking styles to emulate: Zizek's is more colorful and well known, but I find Chomsky's nuances quite fun as well. 

Are Chomsky and Zizek supposed to literally be arguing over Driver in this comic, or are they just representations of how women and men are speaking? It's unclear. This lack of clarity gave me more room to work with jokewise, but I also worry that in doing so, people won't understand what the comic is supposed to mean; there is quite a bit of background knowledge required for this bit to work, after all. But I couldn't miss a chance to pass myself off as an 'intellectual' of sorts, so here we are. Did the comic make sense to you when you first read it? Or are these distinctions and allusions to Zizek and Chomsky too obscure?